MEDIALDEA

VS
LEGAL
EDUCATION
BOARD
RULE 129| SECTION1|
GR. NO. 230642 | SEPT 10, 2019
FACTS:
 These consolidated petitions seek to
declare unconstitutional Republic Act
7662 or the Legal Education Reform Act
of 1993, which created the Legal
Education Board (LEB).
 On the same principal grounds, these
petitions also particularly seek to declare
unconstitutional the LEB issuances
establishing and implementing the
nationwide law school aptitude test
known as the Philippine Law School
Admission Test (PhilSAT).
CONTENTION OF MEDIALDEA ET.AL:

 The LEB (under the Executive Department)

and its issuances are unconstitutional as it
encroaches on the powers of the Supreme
Court to regulate and supervise the legal
profession pursuant to Section 5, paragraph
5, Article VIII of the Constitution.
 They also argue that the PhilSAT violates
the academic freedom of law schools and
the right to education.
 ISSUE:
Can the Court take judicial notice of the
memorandum orders, memorandum circulars and
resolutions issued by the LEB?
 YES.
RULES OF COURT, RULE 129, SECTION 1:

"Judicial notice, when mandatory. - A court shall

take judicial notice, without the introduction of
evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of
states, their political history, forms of government and
symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty
and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the
political constitution and history of the Philippines, the
official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial
departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the
measure of time, and the geographical divisions."
A review of the issuances of the LEB
(i.e., memorandum orders, memorandum
circulars and resolutions), of which this
Court can take judicial notice, and in
which there are no factual questions,
reveals that the LEB has gone beyond its
powers of reasonable supervision and
regulation of the law schools.
 The Supreme Court declared the following powers of the LEB as
unconstitutional together with its issuances:
 to establish a law practice internship.
 to adopt a mandatory continuing legal education.
 to provide mandatory attendance of practicing
lawyers.
 to exclude, restrict and qualify admissions to law
schools in violation of institutional academic
freedom on who to admit
 to dictate the qualifications and classification of
faculty members, deans, and deans of graduate
schools of law in violation of institutional
academic freedom on who may teach.
 to dictate the policies on the establishment of
legal apprenticeship and legal internship
programs in violation of institutional academic
freedom on what to teach.
Through this decision, the Legal Education Board
as an institution will continue to exist but its
regulatory powers have been severely constricted
by the Court’s sweeping and strong endorsement
of academic freedom.
The Court partially nullifies LEB MO No. 7-2016
insofar as it absolutely prescribes the passing of
the PhilSAT and the taking thereof within two
years as a prerequisite for admission to any law
school which runs counter to institutional
academic freedom. However, there is no reason to
strike down the PhilSAT in its entirety.